On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:14:30PM +0000, Leo Simons wrote: > It looks like that maven pom on windows _by default_ downloads and > installs a variety of non-apache-license (and/or non-mit/bsd/variant > license) software. That shouldn¹t really happen. The principle is one of > ³least surprise²: As a user or developer who does not RTFM, following the > default commands/tools/etc, you should end up with a more-or-less > apache-licensed build result (*) that you can redistribute the result > under.
+1 > > But apache policy is that it is acceptable to provide scripts/build > tools/assistance to help those same users/developers do things that they > want to do. As long as they understand the legal situation they end up in. > > I would recommend adding a "nonoss" maven profile that the developer/user > has to explicitly select in order to do those downloads. As long as that > option is described clearly, that¹s then ok. See > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/README > > for an example of how to point out the license situation. We already have the nonoss profile, so this is a pretty good fix for the windows build issues noted above IMO. Damoder/Koushik - please make this change. > > Something similar is true by the way (IMHO, but as a project cloudstack > can definitely decide differently), for a possible MSI script. Making an > MSI script that prompts the user whether to download mysql at the point of > install, **clearly pointing out the license situation** if they choose to > do so, seems reasonable, and I personally would not object to shipping > _that_ kind of script as part of an apache source release. > +1 - that's a reasonable approach as well. Damoder / Koushik - what do you think about this approach? > Finally, the _spirit_ behind the apache policies is that there should be > an option to use cloudstack with a license-compatible database (say, > postgres), even if most users will use mysql (just like most people that > use dbm with httpd will use berkely dbm, but you _can_ use something > else). It¹s perhaps unfortunate that this isn¹t supported, but that¹s not > apache policy, and given the license situation of other system > dependencies, I can imagine no-one here wants to make it a priority. Yeah, that would be nice... but somebody would have to decide that they want to do that. > > > cheers, > > > Leo > > PS: IANAL, but, a lot of this discussion is a bit beyond legal, and is > about choice/policy, and the policy is supposed to be based on common > sense much more than license stuff tends to be :) Agreed - this is about policy not legality.
